Patna High Court - Orders
Ganpat Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 April, 2013
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Shivaji Pandey
Patna High Court LPA No.445 of 2013 (3) dt.29-04-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.445 of 2013
======================================================
Ganpat Singh, S/o Late Ambika Singh, resident of Village- Jalpura, P.S.
Haspura, District- Aurangabad, at present posted as Junior Engineer, O/O
Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works divison-1
Chapra.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Road Constructiion
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan.
5. The Executive Engineer, Natiional Rural Employment Programme,
Siwan.
6. The block Development Officer, Siwan Sadar Block, Siwan.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
3 29-04-2013We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the State.
The present Appeal arises from order dated 17.01.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. no. 7074 of 2012 denying the claim for salary between the period 24.03.2010 to 31.01.2011.
The Appellant, a Junior Engineer in the Rural Works Department deputed to discharge works under the National Rural Employment Programme monitored by the District Magistrate was transferred under his signature of 13.02.2010 Patna High Court LPA No.445 of 2013 (3) dt.29-04-2013 2 mentioning that it was with the approval of the Executive Engineer dated 26.11.2009. But, it did not mention the name of the Appellant. In C.W.J.C. No. 3869 of 2010 preferred by the Appellant, this Court declined interference with his transfer order opining that it was an incidence of service and the post/utilization was for the respondent to decide. Alleged procedural irregularities may not invite interference by the Court unless there be serious allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory rules, none of which were present. Declining interference with the order of transfer dated 13.02.2010 it was directed that it be placed before the Executive Engineer for post facto approval or dissent on a representation by the appellant to be disposed within a maximum period of three months.
The Executive Engineer on 31.03.2010 went beyond the observations of the Court, ascribed words in the order of the Court and held that the transfer of the Appellant had been held to be bad by the Court and therefore he would continue at his earlier place of posting. In the meantime, the Appellant had filed MJC No. 2107 of 2010 alleging disobedience of the order in CWJC No. 3869 of 2010. The District Magistrate referring to the contempt application recalled the transfer order dated 13.2.2010. The Appellant on 2.2.2011 withdrew the contempt application Patna High Court LPA No.445 of 2013 (3) dt.29-04-2013 3 stating that his grievance stood remedied but salary was not being paid. The appellant had also filed MJC No. 1739 of 2011 for non compliance which was declined to be entertained on 21.9.2011.
Learned counsel for the Appellant thus submitted that the authorities having annulled the order for transfer, the Appellant is entitled to full salary as he was wrongly prevented from working in the interregnum.
The submission does not Appeal to us. If a Government servant is aggrieved by an order of transfer, his primary duty is to first join the transferred place of posting and then represent for any grievance that he may have. The Government servant cannot arrogate unto himself the jurisdiction to decide that the order of transfer not being to his satisfaction he was not bound to comply the same. In C.W.J.C. No. 3869 of 2010 no interim stay of the order for transfer dated 13.02.2010 was granted.
That the Court will not ordinarily interfere with orders of transfer stands explained in (1995) 3 SCC 270 (State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav) as follows:-
"The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the Patna High Court LPA No.445 of 2013 (3) dt.29-04-2013 4 administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place."
The predicament of the Appellant is his own creation due to failure to abide by service discipline choosing his own place of posting rather than leaving it for the employer to decide the same and complying with orders as an obedient Government servant.
The reasoning in C.W.J.C. No. 7074 of 2012 being flawless calls for no interference.
The Appeal is dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.) Md. Ibrarul/-